To atheists...

[Fishman]

:sl:
If you strongly deny that the Quran is a true revelation, then you have to have some idea of what a true revelation is like. What do you believe that that a true revelation should and shouldn't contain?
:w:

[abdmez]

:sl:
If you strongly deny that the Quran is a true revelation, then you have to have some idea of what a true revelation is like. What do you believe that that a true revelation should and shouldn't contain?
:w:

Atheists do not believe in Allah brother. They don't care about a true revelation. It is of least importance to them.

[MinAhlilHadeeth]

But if you deny something, then you must have an idea of what it is.

[Fishman]

Atheists do not believe in Allah brother. They don't care about a true revelation. It is of least importance to them.

:sl:
I know that, I used to be one. And if I asked myself this question when I was one, I would not have been able to answer it.
:w:

Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up

[wilberhum]

:sl:
If you strongly deny that the Quran is a true revelation, then you have to have some idea of what a true revelation is like. What do you believe that that a true revelation should and shouldn't contain?
:w:

Da, If someone does not believe in god, how could they beleve in a revelation from god.

[Fishman]

Da, If someone does not believe in god, how could they beleve in a revelation from god.

:sl:
I'm not saying that atheists believe in a revelation from God, I'm asking what they think a true revelation would be like. If you do not believe any relelations to be true, then you must know what a true revelation is like.

contary to popular opinion, I do not believe in flying rollerskates with eyes. I know I have not seen any, because I know what a flying rollerskate with eyes looks like. This is a slightly humorous example of what I'm saying.
:w:

[wilberhum]

truth that would prove the existence of God.

The existance of god is not proveable. The non-existaqnce of god is not proveable.

[czgibson]

Greetings,

He's asking what should a revelation contain in order to classify it as truth, truth that would prove the existence of God.

God, with his attributes as claimed by the three major monotheistic world religions, can never be proven to exist (almost by definition). He is not open to human observation, and is therefore undetectable. Religious believers sometimes state that they have proof of god's existence, but this is nonsense, in the strictest sense of the word. The question above is like me asking you to say what kind of evidence would be sufficient for you to accept the existence of the invisible pink unicorn.

Peace

[Fishman]

The existance of god is not proveable. The non-existaqnce of god is not proveable.

:sl:
I agree with your second statement, but not the first. What if you saw Muhammad do all of the miracles that the hadith describe?
:w:

[glo]

:sl:
I agree with your second statement, but not the first. What if you saw Muhammad do all of the miracles that the hadith describe?
:w:

My husband is an atheist.
He says that a burning bush (as in the biblical one, through which God spoke to Moses) in the back garden would be enough to convince him of God's existance.
As yet, he has not had the opportunity to see one, though ...

[Fishman]

Greetings,
The question above is like me asking you to say what kind of evidence would be sufficient for you to accept the existence of the invisible pink unicorn.
Peace

:sl:
Bumping into it would be enough for me.

Besides, you can prove beyond reasonable doubt that God exists. Read the Quran (and possibly the authentic hadith) with an unbiased mind.
:w:

[czgibson]

Greetings,

Well then - I suppose bumping into god would be proof enough for me. But since (according to Muslims) he exists far beyond the world, and is exceptionally lofty, that is not going to happen unless his attributes change.

I've already said that it is not possible to prove god's existence, unless of course you want to introduce a new definition of the word 'prove'.

I've tried reading the Qur'an, but I got stuck at sura 2 verse 62, which seems to me to give rise to an irreconcilable contradiction. Added to that, as I've mentioned before on the forum, I found the Qur'an to be a very dull read, and nothing I've read in it so far has convinced me that it is anything other than the work of human hands.

Peace

[Fishman]

Greetings,

Well then - I suppose bumping into god would be proof enough for me. But since (according to Muslims) he exists far beyond the world, and is exceptionally lofty, that is not going to happen unless his attributes change.

I've already said that it is not possible to prove god's existence, unless of course you want to introduce a new definition of the word 'prove'.

I've tried reading the Qur'an, but I got stuck at sura 2 verse 62, which seems to me to give rise to an irreconcilable contradiction. Added to that, as I've mentioned before on the forum, I found the Qur'an to be a very dull read, and nothing I've read in it so far has convinced me that it is anything other than the work of human hands.

Peace

:sl:
If one of my friends said he was an alien, and did not give me any good evidence, I would reject his claims. But if he gave me an engine from his spaceship, I would consider that proof. Likewise, if someone told me that God existed without giving evidence, then I would reject their claims. But if someone got me a religious book containing miraculous statements (prophecies, scientific foreknowlege etc) and no errors I would consider it proven.

I'm sorry that you have not been guided yet. May Allah show you his signs in the Quran.
:w:

[czgibson]

Greetings Alpha Dude,

If you were to find information about everything you possibly ever wanted to know from a book that is claimed to be authored by God, would you then believe in God? Does that not empirically prove the existance of God?

Of course not. I'm not sure why you're using the word 'empirically', which refers to direct sensory experience - observation and experiment.

I can get information on just about everything I want to know from the internet. Does that prove it was written by god?

Greetings Fishman,

But if someone got me a religious book containing miraculous statements (prophecies, scientific foreknowlege etc) and no errors I would consider it proven.

Well, that's fair enough if you want to use that as your standard for belief. However, the fact that you consider this a proof does not actually make it so. Something is either a proof or it isn't. Just because something convinces you, that does not in any way mean it is necessarily a proof. I'm beginning to suspect that the word 'proof' has a different meaning in Muslim circles than it does among professional logicians.

Plus, the oft-repeated claim that the Qur'an contains scientific foreknowledge is a Muslim opinion, and has no authority among scientists who haven't been paid substantial sums of money to corroborate such claims.

Peace

[Chuck]

I'm sorry that you have not been guided yet. May Allah show you his signs in the Quran.

Amen brother :)

[czgibson]

Greetings,

The internet is made by man for man, the "internet" is not claim to be a revelation from God.

So if someone made the claim that it was a revelation from god, would that make it true?

The power of this book is such that whomever reads it gains knowledge of their personal future, i.e. what the person will experience in the course of his life depending on the moves he makes. Then going back to the original question posed by Fishman, would you consider that book to be a revelation from God?

Not at all. Supposing someone claimed horoscopes were revelations from god, you'd have the same situation.

Are you claiming that the Qur'an contains knowledge about life-events in your own future, by the way?

Peace

[Ansar Al-'Adl]

The atheist argument concerning the orbiting teapot and the invisible pink unicorn has been discussed as follows:
Ansar Al-'Adl
czgibson
Ansar Al-'Adl
czgibson
Ansar Al-'Adl
Root
czgibson
Ansar Al-'Adl
HeiGou
Ansar Al-'Adl

The issue concerning verse 2:62 has been answered here:
http://load-islam.com/c/rebuttals/Sa...or_non-Muslims

And a discussion of the Qur'an's divine origin here:
http://www.islamicboard.com/comparat...-word-god.html

:w:

[KAding]

Why would God need Prophets? Why does God not speak to each of us individually? Or does he? And are we just not listening? Either way, I don't see how I can trust a man (Mohammed) to give me the word of God?

[yoke]

A true revelation would be something that could be backed up by evidence.

[Idris]

If one of my friends said he was an alien, and did not give me any good evidence, I would reject his claims. But if he gave me an engine from his spaceship, I would consider that proof. Likewise, if someone told me that God existed without giving evidence, then I would reject their claims. But if someone got me a religious book containing miraculous statements (prophecies, scientific foreknowlege etc) and no errors I would consider it proven.

Allah invites people to consider this truth in the following verse:

Are you stronger in structure or is heaven? He built it. He raised its vault high and made it level. He darkened its night and brought forth its morning light. After that He smoothed out the earth… (Surat an Naziat: 27-30)

Elsewhere it is declared in the Qur'an that a person should see and consider all the systems and balances in the universe that have been created for him by Allah and derive a lesson from his observations:

He has made night and day subservient to you, and the sun and moon and stars, all subject to His command. There is certainly Signs in that for people who pay heed. (Surat an-Nahl: 12)

In yet another verse of the Qur'an, it is pointed out:

He makes night merge into day and day merge into night, and He has made the sun and moon subservient, each one running until a specified time. That is Allah, your Lord. The Kingdom is His. Those you call on besides Him have no power over even the smallest speck.(Surah Fatir: 13)

This plain truth declared by the Qur'an is also confirmed by a number of the important founders of the modern science of astronomy. Galileo, Kepler, and Newton all recognised that the structure of universe, the design of the solar system, the laws of physics and their states of equilibrium were all created by Allah and they arrived at that conclusion as a result of their own research and observations.

A true revelation would be something that could be backed up by evidence.

This website is for you check it out

http://www.harunyahya.com/miracles_of_the_quran_01.php

[yoke]

I will respond to your quote instead of going to the website anybody can cut and paste.
What you have quoted are just statements from the Quran. There is no evidence to back these statements up lots of "holy" books have similar claims but have no evidence to back them up.

[yoke]

also show me these miraculous statements, prophecies and scientific foreknowledge.

[Joe98]

If you strongly deny that the Quran is a true revelation

There is no god and therefore nothing to reveal.

then you have to have some idea of what a true revelation is like.

A visit from god to the earth.

A man telling me about a supernatural being is not a revelation.

[IceQueen~]

instead of arguing about what a true revelation should/should not contain and whether what is a true revelation or not-why don't you guys go and actually read the quran from beg. to end?!

when you finished-then come back and argue...



(by the way-once you've finished-see if you can meet the challenges set in it to prove it's false..)

[Woodrow]

:sl:
If you strongly deny that the Quran is a true revelation, then you have to have some idea of what a true revelation is like. What do you believe that that a true revelation should and shouldn't contain?
:w:

There is a minor flaw in the question. In order for an atheist to believe in a true revelation from God(swt), the atheist would need to believe in God. Without a belief in God(swt) there will be no proof for the existance of God(swt). For a person who believes in God(swt) no proof is needed, for a person who does not believe no proof is sufficient.

An atheist actualy has no concept of what a revelation is like. The atheist has no reason to believe any revelation is true. The only revelation an atheist would accept, is one in which the atheist has verifiable proof that he is not an atheist.

[glo]

There is a minor flaw in the question. In order for an atheist to believe in a true revelation from God(swt), the atheist would need to believe in God. Without a belief in God(swt) there will be no proof for the existance of God(swt). For a person who believes in God(swt) no proof is needed, for a person who does not believe no proof is sufficient.

An atheist actualy has no concept of what a revelation is like. The atheist has no reason to believe any revelation is true. The only revelation an atheist would accept, is one in which the atheist has verifiable proof that he is not an atheist.

You converted from atheism to Islam, Woodrow, didn't you?
What did it take to convince you? Was it a sudden revelation upon reading the Qur'an, as Marya seems to indicate? Or something else?
Or were you secretly still a believer, but disppointed with your previous faith and actually looking elsewhere?

I do think there are atheists who fall into this 'searching' group.
But others are utterly clear that they do neither need nor seek a divine influence in their lives.And I agree with you, for those people no proof would ever be good enough. Even God standing on your doorstep could be put down to hallucinations or mental disorders ... :rollseyes

Peace.

[yoke]

Religious people have different revelations which they all believe are true yet they say contradictary things. why is your revelation so special. It is just the same as anybody Else's. Without evidence for you revelation it is just of no use. Nobody should trust any revelation not based on evidence. it has nothing to do with whether i believe in god or not.

I have already some verses in the Quran it is no different from lots of other religious writings that are in the world.

[IceQueen~]

WOOAH!! hey -woodrow reverted to islam?!!?
hey-TAKBEER
masha allah bro-may Allah keep you guided, Ameen.

[KAding]

I really agree with Joe on this. Why does God reveal himself through men? A man revealing God to me, is not the same as a true revelation. A revelation must come from God, otherwise it is unreliable.

[IceQueen~]

yeah but God is beyond us-and if He revealed Himself directly we wouldn't be able to handle the awe..we're just mere humans after all

[root]

yeah but God is beyond us-and if He revealed Himself directly we wouldn't be able to handle the awe..we're just mere humans after all

That is nearly as funny as this:

[yoke]

Dont you think if someone says they have a revelation from god and you just believe it because they said it is a bit stupid?

[glo]

Why do I get the feeling this thread is being taken over by atheists??! ;D

Peace, you guys. :)

[Ansar Al-'Adl]

For those who say the only acceptable evidence of God is Him revealing Himself or some major miraculous occurance...

...read the refutation of that notion here:
http://www.islamicboard.com/comparat...s-atheism.html

[Ansar Al-'Adl]

Why does God reveal himself through men?

Did you know the Qur'an itself responded to this argument 1400 years ago?

64:6 That was because there came to them messengers with Clear Signs, but they said: "Shall (mere) human beings direct us?" So they rejected (the Message) and turned away. But Allah can do without (them): and Allah is free of all needs, worthy of all praise.

17:94-95. And nothing prevented people from believing when the guidance came to them except that they said: What! has Allah raised up a mortal to be a messenger?
Say, Had there been in the earth angels walking about as settlers, We would certainly have sent down to them from the heaven an angel as a messenger.

The function of a messenger is not only to convey the message but implement, explain and practice it, so the people can see how it is to be practiced by another human being, so that they can see how the code of life is to be lived, so that they will not be able to say, "We thought it wasn't possible for human beings to live that way", and so that He could honour the most pious amongst human beings.

[Abdul Fattah]

to all the peopel saying that A revelation would only be considered "true" wen it comes with evidence.

1. So for the sake of argument, that means that if there were a God that wishes to test your faith, he is unable to because any test will be logically refuted by the lack of evidence. But then again believing has nothing to do with evidence right? So I repeat the origenal question What would a hypotetical revelation need in order for you to BELIEVE in it.

2. Try to assume for a second that there actually were miracles in teh past. Now tell me, do you think peopel of the present would accept these assumed factual miracles when there is only a writen record of them?

What I'm trying to do here is show how circular this set of thoughts is.
1. Religion is false ->
2. Record of miracles must be false ->
3. There is no proof that the revelation was devine ->
4. Therefor religion is false.

Quite cunning. However I still have an ace down my sleeve. The biggest miracle proving Muhammed (pbuh) was a prophet has been preserved throughout history! That miracle is the holy Qur'an. And it is still here for anyone to read it. And those who do not want to believe are not convinced by it, but even if the angels would apear in front of them those will still not believe. But those who are not afraid to give religion the benefit of the doubt will apreciate the depth and wonders of the qur'an. those will haev there proof.

Finally I would like to add to this something I already posted in another thread:
Difrent people hold difrent criteria to judge what is or isn't a fact. In the end there is no universal way to determine fact over falsehood.
I'm quite aware that my belief is unproven, yet it feels so certain to me I aproach it as a fact. I would even go so far that on a personal level I consider my religion more factualthen I consider scientific facts to be factual.

[root]

However I still have an ace down my sleeve. The biggest miracle proving Muhammed (pbuh) was a prophet has been preserved throughout history!

I would hardly call less than 2000 years being "throughout history" Steve.

Finally I would like to add to this something I already posted in another thread:
Difrent people hold difrent criteria to judge what is or isn't a fact. In the end there is no universal way to determine fact over falsehood.
I'm quite aware that my belief is unproven, yet it feels so certain to me I aproach it as a fact. I would even go so far that on a personal level I consider my religion more factualthen I consider scientific facts to be factual.

perhaps we should reinforce that science does not really offer facts. merely the probability of a given theory being correct based on the scientific data. For example, the scientific data supports the theory that our planet has been geologically evolving over billions of years and continues to do so. natural disasters are the consequences of an actively evolving planet.

if we look at those two points from a religous point of view, the earth was created and natural disasters are a result of God punishing or testing our faith. the latter simply does not support the scientific data. I also think that miraculous events which by some strange use of logic ends up implicating the existence of a God is not proof. I don't even think religion should "proove" itself (and sometimes I wish they would stop trying). I think between the two issues here (creation of planet and natural disasters as punishment/tests of god" or "an evolving planet with natural disasters a consequence of this process" that logically the scientific data supports the POV that does not support your religion.

[SalafiFemaleJih]

Man yall should chill.

Like Shaykh Yasir Qadhi said (summat along his words) "If a person comes up to you, and start telling you there in no sun out there. Even though you know its a hot sunny day. Would you bother to argue with him, try to proof that there is sun outside? obviously you will not waste your time. Its same thing with atheist when they say there is NO GOD"

Seriously Allah swt just gave ONE ayah against atheist in Qur'an. No more or less. Because Its pointless talking about them.

So why should we try bothering to preach something to atheist? Five mins on them is MORE than enuff.

No offense to any1 on here

Asalamaulykum warahmatullah

[Idris]

the scientific data supports the theory that our planet has been geologically evolving over billions of years and continues to do so. natural disasters are the consequences of an actively evolving planet.

I think natural disasters have been happening for a all time root. I think what you want to say is that science is evolving not the Earth, It is we who are changing the planet.

[Abdul Fattah]

I would hardly call less than 2000 years being "throughout history" Steve.

Ok :)
What I meant was that it is still in the same state so that we can still witness that miracle of 1400 years ago today. As opposed to other miracles wich we can no longer witness but only examine out of man-made records.

perhaps we should reinforce that science does not really offer facts. merely the probability of a given theory being correct based on the scientific data. For example, the scientific data supports the theory that our planet has been geologically evolving over billions of years and continues to do so. natural disasters are the consequences of an actively evolving planet.

Quite right.

if we look at those two points from a religous point of view, the earth was created and natural disasters are a result of God punishing or testing our faith. the latter simply does not support the scientific data. I also think that miraculous events which by some strange use of logic ends up implicating the existence of a God is not proof.

Well I don't think one view contradicts the other. The scientific volution of earth tells us "how" (method, cause and reaction) the earth changed. Religion tells us "why" (motive, purpose). I understand how you fail to acknowledge it as proof. Like I said, everybody holds difrent criteria for that.

I don't even think religion should "proove" itself (and sometimes I wish they would stop trying). I think between the two issues here (creation of planet and natural disasters as punishment/tests of god" or "an evolving planet with natural disasters a consequence of this process" that logically the scientific data supports the POV that does not support your religion.

Yes in the end of the day we're asked to "believe" not to "proof". But if you "believe" something strong enough, it will eventually become more of a certainty then a proven fact. That is what the true meaning of believing is: "To accept as true without having proof of it."

I'm curious though Root: What would a hypotetical revelation/religion need in order for you to BELIEVE in it?

[root]

Steve - I'm curious though Root: What would a hypotetical revelation/religion need in order for you to BELIEVE in it?

it's a double edged sword that question. Personally all religions proclaim a scientific suspension of the known laws of physics to express a miraculous event, in my humble opinion and being around this forum for quite a long time I feel religion has a purpose in life but cannot offer the reason for life.

If we take away God for one second and consider an "Intelligent Designer" as proposed under ID, then I am not so sure any religion would be prepared to accept a truth if it was presented to them clearly concisely and beyond all reasonable doubt. Assume further, we were shown to be in a "simulated universe" that super intelligent beings had not specifically set out to create us but acknowledged our type of life was predicted and many such indpendent intelligent life also existed within their simulation. Would you accept them as your God, perhaps they could even offer the reason why it all began conclusively and delivered the bad news God was not someone they were firmiliar with. What then of your thoughts to your faith.

As for "proof" God does exist I think I have to add to that and at what point would I accept it. Perhaps it's a little too late for "proof", our discoveries about our universe have not exactly confirmed what ANY religion has proposed to be the truth, sure we can spin things, interpret them the way we think it should be interprated based on what scientific discovery suggests. Nothing short now of a modern day suspension of the known laws of physics creating a clear miraculous event would ever claw back the credability all religions have lost and continue to lose amongst the bickering and squabbling over whome is the correct faith.

[Woodrow]

You converted from atheism to Islam, Woodrow, didn't you?
What did it take to convince you? Was it a sudden revelation upon reading the Qur'an, as Marya seems to indicate? Or something else?
Or were you secretly still a believer, but disppointed with your previous faith and actually looking elsewhere?

I do think there are atheists who fall into this 'searching' group.
But others are utterly clear that they do neither need nor seek a divine influence in their lives.And I agree with you, for those people no proof would ever be good enough. Even God standing on your doorstep could be put down to hallucinations or mental disorders ... :rollseyes

Peace.

You converted from atheism to Islam, Woodrow, didn't you?


Close but not quite. I started off as a Roman Catholic. While in my 20's became Buddhist, (reality was an agnostic calling myself Buddhist) spent nearly 40 years in that mode, then reverted to Islam.

I've posted my revision story several times in this forum, so I wont hijack this thread by repeating it here.

[Abdul Fattah]

it's a double edged sword that question. Personally all religions proclaim a scientific suspension of the known laws of physics to express a miraculous event, in my humble opinion and being around this forum for quite a long time I feel religion has a purpose in life but cannot offer the reason for life.

If we take away God for one second and consider an "Intelligent Designer" as proposed under ID, then I am not so sure any religion would be prepared to accept a truth if it was presented to them clearly concisely and beyond all reasonable doubt. Assume further, we were shown to be in a "simulated universe" that super intelligent beings had not specifically set out to create us but acknowledged our type of life was predicted and many such indpendent intelligent life also existed within their simulation. Would you accept them as your God, perhaps they could even offer the reason why it all began conclusively and delivered the bad news God was not someone they were firmiliar with. What then of your thoughts to your faith.

As for "proof" God does exist I think I have to add to that and at what point would I accept it. Perhaps it's a little too late for "proof", our discoveries about our universe have not exactly confirmed what ANY religion has proposed to be the truth, sure we can spin things, interpret them the way we think it should be interprated based on what scientific discovery suggests. Nothing short now of a modern day suspension of the known laws of physics creating a clear miraculous event would ever claw back the credability all religions have lost and continue to lose amongst the bickering and squabbling over whome is the correct faith.

Did i understand that correctly? That there aren't any charesteristics a religion could contain in order for you to believe in it?

[Woodrow]

Did i understand that correctly? That there aren't any charesteristics a religion could contain in order for you to believe in it?

That is how I also understand it Steve. Yet, he makes sense. The interesting thing is that all of Allah's(swt) works can have an explanation other then Allah(swt). We believe in Allah(swt) because of what he has told us, not because of what he has done. If our belief was based simply on example of His Might, we would have no choice about belief. Atheists are a gift to this earth as they do verify that we do have free will and are not under compulsion to believe.

[glo]

You converted from atheism to Islam, Woodrow, didn't you?


Close but not quite. I started off as a Roman Catholic. While in my 20's became Buddhist, (reality was an agnostic calling myself Buddhist) spent nearly 40 years in that mode, then reverted to Islam.

I've posted my revision story several times in this forum, so I wont hijack this thread by repeating it here.

My mistake.
I seemed to remember that you were an atheist for a while before finding Islam. I had not realised that you had left the Catholic faith so early in life either.
I must go and find your conversion story ...

Peace.

[Joe98]

That there aren't any characteristics a religion could contain in order for you to believe in it?

Correct. That goes for me too.

[duskiness]

We believe in Allah(swt) because of what he has told us, not because of what he has done. If our belief was based simply on example of His Might, we would have no choice about belief. Atheists are a gift to this earth as they do verify that we do have free will and are not under compulsion to believe.

- i liked that! I remember i read something similar to your statment: atheists are question mark to believers, and believers are question mark to atheists (...i think it was Ratzinger when He was still Ratzinger ;) )
It may aslo be true to Muslim-Christian relationship...
n.

[Abdul Fattah]

Correct. That goes for me too.

so in other words, even if religion would be accurate; you'd still wouldn't believe in it?

[Woodrow]

so in other words, even if religion would be accurate; you'd still wouldn't believe in it?

We who believe in God(swt) tend to become impatiant with those that don't. We do have a hard time understanding their disbelief. Often we view it as stubborness and/or arrogance. Perhaps, we need to understand that their own philosophy on life is their choice and their right. We do not need to prove anything and nobody needs to prove anything to us.

All any of us can do is state why we believe what we do, yet accept the persons right to not understand what we feel.

Somebody once said "To a believer no proof is needed, to an unbeliever no proof is sufficient." When we attempt to prove our beliefs to another in concrete terms, often we end up dealing in areas we have no expertise. When we try to persuade, we face the danger of appearing to be trying to convince ourselves.

Belief in God(swt) is both simple and complex. To a person who desires to believe, all is seen as proof. To a person who desires not to believe, alternate explantions are given for every stated proof.

[Abdul Fattah]

Well I'm not out to prove anything. And I do understand their p.o.v. I was an atheist for the longest part of my life, and not just out of absence of religion, but really out of being convinced. I'm only trying to make things clear, to challange people to think things trough.

[Joe98]

By Allah, this world in comparison to the hereafter is nothing but as though one of you dipped his finger in the sea. So ponder how much, the finger returns with.

Religion can never be accurate. Its based on faith and superstition.

[Woodrow]

Religion can never be accurate. Its based on faith and superstition.

I hope that one day my faith will be as strong as your faith is. Your tenacity in your beliefs is very admirable. I will say you have shown the courage and stamina to stand by your convictions and to be fair I believe you also support our right to stand by ours.

[Annie]

Salams
The Quran is the proof that Allah exists
Wasalm Annie

[3iraqiyya]

:sl:



"So let them flounder (in their talk) and play until they meet the Day which they are promised" [43:83]



((There is no God but He: It is He Who gives life and gives death- The Lord and Cherisher to you and your earliest ancestors.

Yet they play about in doubt.

Then watch thou for the Day that the sky will bring forth a kind of smoke plainly visible,

Enveloping the people: this will be a Penalty Grievous.

(They will say) "Our Lord! Remove the Penalty from us, for we do really beleive!"

How shall the message be (effectuall) for them, seeing that a messenger explaining things clearly has (already) come to them,

Yet they turn away from him and say: 'Tutored (by others), a man possessed!' )) [44:9-15]



((Most surely they do say:

"There is nothing beyond our first death, and we shall not be raised again".

"Then bring (back) our forefathers, if what ye say is true!" ...)) [44:35-37]



((..(they say) "Does he promise you that when you die and are dust and bones, you will be brought (out of the graves)?"

"Away, away with whatever you are promised!"

"Decidedly there is nothing except our present life. We die and we live, and in no way will we be made to rise again."

"Decidedly he is nothing except a man... and in no way will we (become) believers to him". ))


((And have they not looked into the dominion of the heavens and the earth and what things Allah has created, and that may be that their term has already drawn near? So, in whichever discourse after (this) are they to beleive?

Whomever Allah leads into error, then no guide he has, and He leaves them blundering in their inordinance. )) [7:185-186]


:w:

[iLL_LeaT]

I hope that one day my faith will be as strong as your faith is. Your tenacity in your beliefs is very admirable. I will say you have shown the courage and stamina to stand by your convictions and to be fair I believe you also support our right to stand by ours.

LOL… Oh how true!

The existance of god is not proveable. The non-existaqnce of god is not proveable.

Also very true! As we can see from this thread, a general consensus God’s existence will never be decided.

Logically, could there be a God? Unfortunately, with how humans determine logic, as of now, it would be hard to logically conclude that there is any kind of God. That is only because logical ideas are based off of evidence and life experiences, and the only “evidence” we have comes from science. And we will not have any kind of evidence any time soon, if ever, that will prove the existence of God. As science evolves, the idea of reality also evolves. As unfathomable concepts become testable, the unknown becomes known. Who knows, perhaps someday the afterlife and the existence of God will be testable, and then the existence of God will have some place in logic. But until then, God has no place in logic. Those of us who have a hard time thinking any way but logically, it is hard to say, “There is a God!”

What about freewill though? A big thing with Christians is freewill. The biggest part of freewill (in my option) is the ability to think there is no god at all. For people to have the ability to logically conclude that there is a God would take that free will away, and that is why it is (and probably will always will be) impossible to prove. And for some odd reason, humans tend to think that they have the potential to be smarter then God himself, but if God does not want to be found, he will not be found. (This is of course all assuming that there is a God).

With this freewill thing, what does that say about Muhammad, Jesus, Mosses, etc? Are they fakes? Could be, but also with this freewill needs to be the ability to find God.

Really, the argument of the existence of God can be argued an infinite number of ways, and it never changes anything or anyone’s opinion because nothing is provable. It really is pointless. For any personal religious changes to be made, it would have to be made by the individual.

The existence of God is based on faith, and the non-existence of God is also based on faith.

[Idris]

Ancient Greek philosophy.. wow I wished they ever invented this, life would had be straightforward, simple, uncomplicated but this is a test and it's not going to be easy.

Yet they play about in doubt.

Then watch thou for the Day that the sky will bring forth a kind of smoke plainly visible,

Enveloping the people: this will be a Penalty Grievous.

(They will say "Our Lord! Remove the Penalty from us, for we do really beleive!"

How shall the message be (effectuall) for them, seeing that a messenger explaining things clearly has (already) come to them,

Yet they turn away from him and say: 'Tutored (by others), a man possessed!' )) [44:9-15]

[czgibson]

Greetings,

Ancient Greek philosophy.. wow I wished they ever invented this, life would had be straightforward, simple, uncomplicated but this is a test and it's not going to be easy.

I'm not quite sure if I've understood you correctly, but are you actually saying you object to Ancient Greek philosophy? If so, why?

It essentially forms the start of Western intellectual history, and I think the world would be much poorer without it.

Peace

[Link]

The existance of God can be proven logically to yourself if not to others. The problem with proving it to others is that sometimes we differ on intuitive things, like cause and effect, and other things. So if someone refuses to accept 1 plus 1 = 2, then how can you teach him mulitiplication?

We need to start with somethings we agree upon, if a person rejects some of the basic things that most people would not reject, then ofcourse you can't prove anything to him.

[Joe98]

The existance of God can be proven logically.

No it cannot. And that is why religion is based on faith.

If you even attempt to prove the existance of god it means you don't have faith in your own religion.

[Ghazi]

No it cannot. And that is why religion is based on faith.

If you even attempt to prove the existance of god it means you don't have faith in your own religion.

:sl:

Huh? you sitting there while you disobey your creator is evidence for me that the "most-merciful" exists.

[Joe98]

you sitting there while you disobey your creator is evidence for me that the creator exists.

Classic circular logic by religious people!

[wilberhum]

The existance of God can be proven logically

It is called Rational Proof. But “Rational Proof” is a theist term to imply proof when there is none.

[Link]

No it cannot. And that is why religion is based on faith.

If you even attempt to prove the existance of god it means you don't have faith in your own religion.

Islam calls people to understand, not to accept things blindly, it actually forbids following what we don't have knowledge of. So we are required to know our religion is the right one, not just follow it. And while all other faiths depend on just accepting with no proof, the Quran provides clear proofs to what is the right religion.

Do you believe the rule of cause and effect applies to everything we know in the universe? (this is the basis of science)

[Woodrow]

Quoted from ILL_Leat:

The existence of God is based on faith, and the non-existence of God is also based on faith.

Very thought provoking comment.

[Joe98]

The existence of God is based on faith, and the non-existence of God is also based on faith.

No its not!

The god of love and the god of war do a lot of work here on the earth.

The god of Moses and Jesus and Muhammad (pbuh) does nothing.

[cleo]

The human hand is amazing isn't it...Don't you feel empty? Lost? No peace in your heart? When you breath, where did it come from? When you stop breathing, where do you think you go for eternity? In darkness, what a horrible thought! Something must stur your thoughts, someone may direct you, peace and blessing to you.

[Woodrow]

The human hand is amazing isn't it...Don't you feel empty? Lost? No peace in your heart? When you breath, where did it come from? When you stop breathing, where do you think you go for eternity? In darkness, what a horrible thought! Something must stur your thoughts, someone may direct you, peace and blessing to you.

This are things each of us must and can only answer within our selves. We do not know the inner thoughts of any person except our selves, and often we can not fully understand or express them. There is so much we take on the basis we believe it. As we learn more reasons for the belief, the stronger our faith becomes. All things are a learning process. Some of us read different sources.

[root]

Cleo - When you stop breathing, where do you think you go for eternity?

I will go back to where I was in 1969!

[czgibson]

Greetings,

The existance of God can be proven logically to yourself if not to others.

That's a self-contradictory statement. If it could be proved by logic, then everyone would automatically accept it.

We need to start with somethings we agree upon, if a person rejects some of the basic things that most people would not reject, then ofcourse you can't prove anything to him.

Perhaps, but what do atheists reject that "most people" would not?

By the way - to Joe98 - atheism is a faith position whether we like it or not. It's a negative faith, but there's no way of proving it, so it is a form of faith.

Peace

[Link]

then everyone would automatically accept it

Everyone should accept it, but it doesn't neccessarily mean everyone would. It's not self-contradictory, because sometimes people will accept false things and reject true things just so they don't accept the conclusion.

Perhaps, but what do atheists reject that "most people" would not?

everyone intuitively knows movement of something needs a cause, nothing just happens without a cause, some athiests accept this for everything but make an exception for the begining of the universe where they assert things just colided at some point without a cause. So they make an acception to the intuitive facts everyone knows and even they acknowledge for everything else, just for the sake of not accepting the need of uncause eternal no begining (thus time not applied to) no end for the cause of what has begining (has numbered not infinite eternal existance), changes, etc.

[czgibson]

Greetings Link,

Everyone should accept it, but it doesn't neccessarily mean everyone would. It's not self-contradictory, because sometimes people will accept false things and reject true things just so they don't accept the conclusion.

I don't think you've read me right. Your comment is indeed self-contradictory, because it is in the nature of logical proofs that someone would be irrational or crazy not to accept them. For example, take the following argument:

Premise 1: All men are mortal,

Premise 2: Socrates is a man,

Conclusion: Socrates is mortal.

If we assume that the premises are true, then it would be absurd to deny that the conclusion was also true. This sort of certainty does not exist in the case of the "logical proof" of god's existence that you speak of.

everyone intuitively knows movement of something needs a cause, nothing just happens without a cause, some athiests accept this for everything but make an exception for the begining of the universe where they assert things just colided at some point without a cause.

This is the first cause argument, but you misrepresent the atheist response to it (or at least this atheist's response to it). The fact is that the ultimate cause of the universe is unknown, and no amount of religious affirmation will change that.

Peace

[Link]

:

Premise 1: All men are mortal,

Premise 2: Socrates is a man,

Conclusion: Socrates is mortal.

I am saying the problems is not if the arugment is valid, it's when the premises are rejected as being false when they are true.

[Link]

I will try to prove to you somethings about the 'unknown 1st cause' that I believe are intuitive knowledges everyone has.

1]Whatever always existed must of had no begining
2] If had no begining 'time' does not apply to it (like I am 20 years old - because I had begining - without begining I would be infinite in age all the time) hence is always the last also (begining and end forever)
3] Things that had a begining must have been caused and being caused if they exist by what didn't have a begining and always existed
4] The existance of such things would prove the eternal existance always had ability and power to create
5] Since the eternal existance outside of time and causes everything in time, it knows the begining and end of everything within time
6] Alos since it had no begining and no end and time doesn't apply to it, it neither decrease or increases and whatever it is, it exists in the absolute infinite beyond measurement that cannot be increased (like if it was increasing from measurement of 1 to 2 to 4etc or at a known measurement it would it would mean it had begining and is in frame of time increasing which would mean it didn't always exist eternally since it would mean it had a begining and numbered age)

Conclusion: The cause of the universe is a something that always existed and will continue to exist beyond time and measurement and has knowledge of all the things that happened and will happen.

There are other things we can prove about the eternal existance with intuitive knowledge. like the fact it doesn't have colour, height, width, body, hands, feet, place etc.

[czgibson]

Greetings Link,

Thanks for your interesting post. I really like this kind of philosophical discussion.

1]Whatever always existed must of had no begining

That is logical, assuming that there is indeed something that "always existed", but how do you know there is? I believe this question negates most of your following points, since they all rely on this assumption. Almost everything you say does indeed logically proceed from this, but in terms of matters of fact, none of these things is necessarily true.

3] Things that had a begining must have been caused and being caused if they exist by what didn't have a begining and always existed

I'm not sure I agree with you here. For example: I had a beginning in time, and the direct cause of it was the sexual union of my parents, who certainly haven't always existed.

There are other things we can prove about the eternal existance with intuitive knowledge. like the fact it doesn't have colour, height, width, body, hands, feet, place etc.

As you'd expect, I don't believe any of this constitutes "proof" or "intuitive knowledge", because of my objection to the assumption underlying all of this. The point is that there may or may not be an "eternal existence"; if such a thing does exist, it's never been observed or detected by anybody; as such, it cannot be considered an object of knowledge at all.

Peace

[Link]

Peace be upon you inshallah

Thanks for your interesting post. I really like this kind of philosophical discussion.

You welcome, I hope you continue to enjoy it.

That is logical, assuming that there is indeed something that "always existed", but how do you know there is?

Because it doesn't make sense everything appeared out of nothing. From nothing, nothing follows.

I believe this question negates most of your following points, since they all rely on this assumption.

That's alright. Because the assumption is something everyone knows, from nothing nothing follows, that is why thiest and athiest alike believe something did always exist.

Almost everything you say does indeed logically proceed from this, but in terms of matters of fact, none of these things is necessarily true.

Something needed to eternally exist or there would be simply nothingness. It is a true assumption.

I'm not sure I agree with you here. For example: I had a beginning in time, and the direct cause of it was the sexual union of my parents, who certainly haven't always existed.

There is a series of causes, the ultimate cause must have always existed.

The point is that there may or may not be an "eternal existence"; if such a thing does exist, it's never been observed or detected by anybody; as such, it cannot be considered an object of knowledge at all.

It is impossible to know what it is, but somethings can be known about it, like it being timeless since it must have always existed and had no begining, it being able to cause the universe to exist.

[czgibson]

Greetings Link,

Because it doesn't make sense everything appeared out of nothing. From nothing, nothing follows.

Because the assumption is something everyone knows, from nothing nothing follows, that is why thiest and athiest alike believe something did always exist.

But this isn't an acceptable justification for something to count as knowledge, and it certainly is not something that everyone knows.

We don't know for sure that there is something that always existed. The concept of infinite time stretching back makes as little sense as the idea of something arising from nothing. This is what the philosopher Immanuel Kant called one of the antinomies (paradoxes) of space and time. Both propositions are equally (un)likely, and so it is rash to assume that we know one of them must be true. The obvious (and truest) answer is to say that we do not know.

You're also crediting atheists here with a belief that many of them do not in fact hold, i.e. the idea that something always existed.

Peace

[Link]

If you intuitively think it is possible that things came out of nothing, then yes this would end my argument. This is why I said perhaps it is impossible to prove to everyone, but not so to yourself. To me it is absurd to think something came out of nothing without a cause what so ever.

[Link]

However, I have a couple more arguments aside from cause and effect I will share later.

[Muezzin]

Belief or disbelief in a higher being are, basically, matters of personal preference. There's no accounting for taste...

[aishaazher]

salaam,
everyone here has to see this movie......it is about the scientific miracles found in the quran.....and it gives evidence that the quran is the word of god....first see this movie...then argue......

http://www.harunyahya.com/miracles_of_the_quran_01.php

~aisha~

[Link]

Peace to you Czgibson inshallah, what is the 'atom' (the philisophical term -ie.smallest unit of existance) according to you? And when you have decided, tell me why not go further? Try to find it and you will see the reality of finding the 'atom' is an infinite sequence - so at the end of the day what is the real existance and is relying on our five senses an accurate way to define matter? Is what is seen by the eyes, the distances, the colour, or smelled, or felt, or is the weight we feel, etc, or all of together then define matter? if we think about, our senses just depend on opposite poles and scale something inbetween to our brains and it is our brain that gives us all our perceptions (dark vs bright, rough vs soft, cold vs hot, colours is little more complicated but still rays ranging in frequency, heavy vs light etc), but which of these perceptions help define existance? To define existance by the physics is an infinite search (the atom made out of quarks - quarks made out of x - x made of z - z made out of - and on and on i goes) which makes it logically flawed, because something has to constitute existance- and the only real existance that can be defined is what is beyond our five senses and space - it exist in a metaphysical way and this the real atom of existane - it has no size everything that exist simply experiences - but what is the source of all this experience and cause of it - we say this is God and he is the living by which all other things live - he causes everything to exist and we are like shadow beings that exist only due to him - and the same is about all levels of life - they're real existance is non-physical and exist on metaphysical state - while physical existane in reality is just our false conclusion we made

Although my argument seems to be appeal to ignorance - it's not - I've state it's impossible to define what constitues the smallest unit of life if we only believe things physically no matter how far science will go - because it's an infinite search for the impossible when atempting to define the substance of existance physically (as in space)

[czgibson]

Greetings Link,

Although my argument seems to be appeal to ignorance - it's not - I've state it's impossible to define what constitues the smallest unit of life if we only believe things physically no matter how far science will go - because it's an infinite search for the impossible when atempting to define the substance of existance physically (as in space)

You've made quite a profound argument, and essentially I agree with you, but I don't see how any of this gives support for belief in god.

When we think about matters of existence, even of everyday objects, things are liable to get confusing when we go even a tiny amount beyond the surface level. In essence, it's impossible to prove anything exists, or to explain fully what form the existence of any particular object takes.

Your example of the atom is a good one - for many years protons, neutrons and electrons were all that was known of atomic particles, before the discovery of smaller and smaller constituent parts.

You mention the appeal to ignorance, which is relevant, because after a certain point all we can say is that we don't know. What I'm saying is that material evidence or sensory observation (with or without the assistance of scientific equipment) are currently the best measuring tools we have to establish the nature of things. They're not perfect, by any means (and your argument points this out), but they're the best we have. Therefore, if god's existence can't be shown by their use, then it is more likely that god doesn't exist. This is the point of my frequent appeals to lack of observed evidence when it comes to god.

Peace

[Abdul Fattah]

You've made quite a profound argument, and essentially I agree with you, but I don't see how any of this gives support for belief in god.

When we think about matters of existence, even of everyday objects, things are liable to get confusing when we go even a tiny amount beyond the surface level. In essence, it's impossible to prove anything exists, or to explain fully what form the existence of any particular object takes.

Your example of the atom is a good one - for many years protons, neutrons and electrons were all that was known of atomic particles, before the discovery of smaller and smaller constituent parts.

You mention the appeal to ignorance, which is relevant, because after a certain point all we can say is that we don't know. What I'm saying is that material evidence or sensory observation (with or without the assistance of scientific equipment) are currently the best measuring tools we have to establish the nature of things. They're not perfect, by any means (and your argument points this out), but they're the best we have. Therefore, if god's existence can't be shown by their use, then it is more likely that god doesn't exist. This is the point of my frequent appeals to lack of observed evidence when it comes to god.

Peace

I think personal expieriance is much more relevant when it colmes to the question of faith. Sure emperical testing might be the best universal tool for validation, but when it comes to your personal convictions, your personal expieriance will be much more relevant, regardless of what logic tells you.

[Link]

I think personal expieriance is much more relevant when it colmes to the question of faith.

Salam

Regarding the existance of God, it is very easy logically to accept it.

here I will show you in a few lines.

Either you believe existance can come out non-existance without a cause or it can't. Everyone who see a cloud or a tree or a rock, etc, doesn't think it just came out of no where by itself, everyone, believes it had to come from something, and that had to come from something, etc, with a series of causes. Tell a 3 year old kid that his toy appeared out of nothing, he either won't believe you or if he does, he will then conclude it was miracalous act by a miracolous being. He will never conclude that it just happened with no cause. Take one person who would believe something he sees came out of nothing with no cause, you won't find one person, everyone will always go back some causes, but always then stop, either reaching the cause of the series of causes or will stop without reaching that. The problem with athiest scientist is they go back alot, but then stop too without reaching the cause of all causes. But it's a fact everyone knows out nothingness existance cannot beging to appear with no cause. If there was always nothing, there would always be nothing. It couldn't have been nothing, then all of sudden existance appears with no cause. This is a fact everyone knows.

Either something always existed or nothing existed and we know it's not the latter since we exist. Therefore whatever always existed, never had a beginining. And whatever didn't have a begining, time never applied to it, and thus is infinite forever with out a defined age we can define. Everything that had a begining would owe it's existance to the that that didn't, because it would be brought into being through the always infinte existing with no begining no end, but rather the begining whence there is no begining and the end whence there is no end. This proves that being is the Creator. It is also known by the very fact it exists beyond time from whence there is no begining and forever infinitely beyond measurment whence there is no end that it has knowledge of all things that occur with in time. Seeing God's light, his holiness, beautiful names and the pearls of his treasures of his essence, all need faith while knowing we have creator that knows all and is the cause of the universe is a matter of logic. This is through the Islamic perspective since Satan knows God exists but is considered a disbeliever never the less for the rejection of God's light (which faith, sincerity, humbleness, experience all come in).

Therefore there has to be a seperation to what is a matter of faith (seeing) and matter of logic (proofs with undoutable facts that everyone agrees on).

Peace

[czgibson]

Greetings Link,

Regarding the existance of God, it is very easy logically to accept it.

You seem to be recycling your arguments here, despite the fact that I've already pointed out the major flaw in them.

Either you believe existance can come out non-existance without a cause or it can't.

Fallacy of the excluded middle.

My belief on this matter is "I don't think so, but it may not be impossible".

Tell a 3 year old kid that his toy appeared out of nothing, he either won't believe you or if he does, he will then conclude it was miracalous act by a miracolous being.

Excluded middle once again. It's becoming a hallmark of your arguments!

The problem with athiest scientist is they go back alot, but then stop too without reaching the cause of all causes.

Do you know why they do this? Because beyond a certain point, all thoughts on the matter are pure speculation.

But it's a fact everyone knows out nothingness existance cannot beging to appear with no cause. If there was always nothing, there would always be nothing. It couldn't have been nothing, then all of sudden existance appears with no cause. This is a fact everyone knows.

Does everyone know this? How can you presume to speak for all of humanity?

Either something always existed or nothing existed and we know it's not the latter since we exist.

When? What are you talking about here?

Also, how do we know that before the Big Bang something existed for a while, then stopped existing for a while, repeated as many times and with as many different entities as you like? Excluded middle for the third time.

Therefore whatever always existed, never had a beginining.

You're now proposing an eternal existence, but how do you know that there is a something that has always existed? You've just created it out of thin air.

And whatever didn't have a begining, time never applied to it, and thus is infinite forever with out a defined age we can define.

So because we can't define its age we should just make assumptions about it instead?

Everything that had a begining would owe it's existance to the that that didn't, because it would be brought into being through the always infinte existing with no begining no end, but rather the begining whence there is no begining and the end whence there is no end. This proves that being is the Creator. It is also known by the very fact it exists beyond time from whence there is no begining and forever infinitely beyond measurment whence there is no end that it has knowledge of all things that occur with in time. Seeing God's light, his holiness, beautiful names and the pearls of his treasures of his essence, all need faith while knowing we have creator that knows all and is the cause of the universe is a matter of logic.

Whatever logic was contained in your argument has totally disappeared now. You're just adding attributes for no reason other than your own wishful thinking and desire to conform with tradition.

What exactly does a phrase like "the pearls of his treasures of his essence" actually mean?

Therefore there has to be a seperation to what is a matter of faith (seeing) and matter of logic (proofs with undoutable facts that everyone agrees on).

You may believe that you have a proof of god's existence here, and a logical one at that, but as I hope you can see from what I've written, this is clearly not the case.

Peace

[Link]

Fallacy of the excluded middle.

My belief on this matter is "I don't think so, but it may not be impossible".

So you don't know which one it is. Therefore you are saying you are not making the choice, ok, that's fine, but there is only two possibilites. Either existance always existed or it came from nothingness. The latter I stated is something everyone knows did not happen. I think you know aswell, your words that you don't is not a proof, because to me you are only rejecting here because you want to reject the conclusion. However in all other cases other then this conclusion, you would accept this intuitive thing you know. This an intuitive thing everyone knows, nothingness could not have just existed and all of sudden existance appears. Existance must have always been existing and the fact it has no begining implies other things which I have explained. You are denying a intuitive fact, nothing can from 0. 0 dividid by anything will aways remain 0. You think it's rational to accept the possibility things just appeared out of nothingness. I think you can try that toy thing on anyone - with any substance - and they will laugh at this. Everyone knows for sure, you and others are just denying it only because you know this intuitive fact implies 100% the existance of God.

[czgibson]

Greetings Link,

So you don't know which one it is. Therefore you are saying you are not making the choice, ok, that's fine, but there is only two possibilites. Either existance always existed or it came from nothingness.

As I've said, these are not the only two possibilities. This is why you've committed the fallacy of the excluded middle. When you talk about the origins of the universe, you're talking about something that nobody understands or has knowledge about.

Peace

[Link]

Name a third possibility other then something always existed or existance came from non-existance. There is no 3rd option here.

[czgibson]

Greetings,

Name a third possibility other then something always existed or existance came from non-existance. There is no 3rd option here.

Here's your original quote:

Either you believe existance can come out non-existance without a cause or it can't.

As you can hopefully see, my own belief ("I don't think so, but it may not be impossible") is not covered by either of the two positions you mentioned.

Remember we're talking about beliefs here. Out of the choices you've offered here, I can't commit myself fully one way or the other. Nobody knows.

Peace

[Link]

Alright, I clarified what I mean was there are two possibilities to deny or accept, or remain neutral too (neither accept or deny), but you can't say it's both, it has to be either one, this is what I meant. So there is still two options which makes my argument yet valid and sound.

[------]

OK am so outta this thread lol my brains starting to hurt 2 many long words lol

[[I:GM] Forum]

:sl:
If you strongly deny that the Quran is a true revelation, then you have to have some idea of what a true revelation is like. What do you believe that that a true revelation should and shouldn't contain?
:w:

good question but as others have said they do not believe in Allah (swt), they follow the 'not believing in Allah (god)' religion
this question would be more suited for the christians and the jews.

[czgibson]

Greetings,

Alright, I clarified what I mean was there are two possibilities to deny or accept, or remain neutral too (neither accept or deny),

So in other words there are three options... ;)

In fact there is a spectrum of possible opinions on this. As you've seen, I incline more to the view that it is unlikely that something could come out of nothing, while remaining open to the idea that it could somehow be possible.

but you can't say it's both, it has to be either one, this is what I meant. So there is still two options which makes my argument yet valid and sound.

Right - I don't think you've understand this point. We are still talking about beliefs, not about logical certainties. I don't deny that as a matter of fact (albeit an unknown fact) something either must have always existed, or something arose from non-existence. If something always existed, that could have been one or any number of entities, or successions of entities forming a continuous line of existence. It's also possible to imagine an intermittent existence of some sort. These are all options - but to come back to your original point: to say that you must believe either that something always existed or that something came from nothing - one or the other - is straightforwardly silly. Please tell me you can see the difference, as I'm beginning to feel like I'm banging my head against a brick wall here.

I hope we can agree on our different interpretations of that particular point. Would you like now to address any of the other flaws in your argument that I've pointed out?

Peace

[Link]

You still haven't given a 3rd option. I clarified what I meant by my statement and you misunderstood what I was saying, partially do to me not making it clearly (my statement can mean two things, as in believe or there are two possibilites to accept, deny or remain neutral) and also to do you not wanting to address the issue.

I've state something regarding what has no begining, is timeless. Now are you addressing this premise?

[czgibson]

Greetings Link,

I gave you several additional options! You seem not to have noticed them.

Never mind. There are only so many ways I can rephrase the same thing. Either you're not reading my posts, or we've got some other kind of barrier between us here. Either way, my part in this discussion is now over.

Peace

[Link]

Greetings Link,

I gave you several additional options! You seem not to have noticed them.

They all fall in the category that something always existed, I stated some additional facts about what it means when there is no begining (always existed) so are you against these premises now? I feel like these things are known just like 1 +1 = 2 is known, but might be intuitive knowledge not everyone has... sigh.. just wondering though which premises you are rejecting

[root]

They all fall in the category that something always existed, I stated some additional facts about what it means when there is no begining (always existed) so are you against these premises now? I feel like these things are known just like 1 +1 = 2

Link,

Just wondering if you could give me a beginning for your number 1 as stated above, You are wrong in giving us an unsubstantiated claim of a fact for if that was true then numbers have no "BEGINNING" does this mean that the numbers have always existed?

[czgibson]

Greetings,

I have to say that normally I have no difficulty in making my views clear; for some reason this doesn't seem to be the case this time. I'm getting fed up with saying the same thing again and again, but I really would like to get this cleared up just so we can drop this futile discussion.

They all fall in the category that something always existed,

No they don't. An intermittent existence does not necessarily imply an eternal existence.

I stated some additional facts about what it means when there is no begining (always existed) so are you against these premises now?

Facts? Premises? Sorry, I don't know what you're referring to.

I feel like these things are known just like 1 +1 = 2 is known, but might be intuitive knowledge not everyone has... sigh.. just wondering though which premises you are rejecting

The idea that something has always existed is a possibility, but it certainly is not a matter of intuitive knowledge.

Here's what I've been trying (painfully) to get across. Your original point:

Either you believe existance can come out non-existance without a cause or it can't.

This is a fallacy of the excluded middle, a false dilemma, call it what you will. You exclude the possibility that someone could answer with "I don't know" on the question of belief, or that an intermittent existence is possible, or that a succession of different existent entities is possible.

To say "you must believe either of these two options" is wrong for two reasons. Firstly, people may be unsure, and they should not be forced to adopt one view or the other when the evidence is so scanty; secondly, the other options I've mentioned, which emphatically do not fall into the category of "something always existed".

Any clearer?

Peace